CKNW Editorial
for May 5, 1999

As many listeners will know, I’ve been on about substantial reform to our system for some time. I raised the matter with The Honourable Andrew Petter a couple of years ago, by mail and in person, and have also raised it recently with Gordon Campbell. I have written about it – it forms a major part of my book, Canada:Is Anyone Listening? A few weeks ago, I presented a paper to Trinity Western University in honour of the Mel Smith Chair and two weeks ago I gave a speech in Creston on the matter, which received some publicity. I say all this only because I want to tell you why I am going on so.

A good part of it is because I’ve now been around a long time and honestly think I know something about the subject. And I’m a peculiar old fart in that far from getting more conservative with old age I have become impatient to see the reforms, which will enable my children, and grandchildren keep this country together. I have no selfish interest because there is no real chance that I will see much of the reforms themselves much less the benefits.

Another reason is that I strongly sense that the time for deep reforms is here. As I speak on the radio and around the province and get feedback from my weekly article in the Province I sense a deep discontent with the system. For many it’s a visceral thing that they have not yet thought out but it is no less

real for that

I believe that in the longer term the reforms must be drastic. I have long felt that the real enemy is "responsible government", the thing we were taught as kids to revere. It has led to top down government where, instead of the government being responsible to the legislature or parliament, it is quite the other way around.

But let me set out four reforms today, only one of which would require any legislation. And lest these ideas seem trivial let me assure you that the real change in process would be immediately evident.

First, go to the single transferable ballot meaning that voters get to select their choice in descending order of preference. As with leadership conventions the count in each riding continues until one person has a majority. The disadvantages are only to the media who may not have the exciting horse races to report but that should scarcely count for much. It might be a tad more expensive but not much. What it will do is make the government more reflective of the wishes of the people.

Second, I would make the chamber horseshoe shaped instead of two rows facing one another. This has an important psychological effect and is used by most chambers elsewhere in the world as well as in Manitoba. As Churchill once so aptly said, first we shape our buildings, then they shape us.

Thirdly I would have the government sit facing the horseshoe with the Speaker behind so that the Government has to look all the legislators in the eye, not just the opposition. And I would have each member seated in alphabetical order in accordance with constituency so that there would be no homogenous seating arrangement whatsoever.

Lastly, the rule would be on all votes, confidence or not, that if 1/3 of the legislature seeks it, a vote shall be by secret ballot.

Oh my God! I can hear the cries from here. It’s just not done. Our fathers shed blood etc … Magna Carta and Simon De Montfort and all that stuff … it would be a denial of all the freedoms we have fought for. All of which is barnyard droppings. If a vote failed, there would be no need, except on the budget or straight confidence motion, for the government to resign but the public would know that some government members had to have disapproved.

Besides, we long ago gave the secret ballot to ordinary citizens so they could not be bribed or bullied – why shouldn’t the MLA or MP have the same privilege. The only democrat I’ve ever heard speak against the secret ballot is New Democrat Ken Georgetti who somehow thinks it’s undemocratic for union certification proceedings.

If these simple reforms were to happen, the government would reflect the voter, it would lose psychological power and the backbencher would be greatly emancipated.

I make these suggestions seriously and can tell you this – the only leader who would reject any of them is afraid of the consequences to him if they are implemented. One thing’s for damn sure – the public would be well served by all of them.